Depth of Field in Macro Photography

One of the greatest challenges for macro photographers is achieving sharp focus for all of the scene's important elements. In this image the wings of only one of this pair of caper whites are in focus.

The defining characteristic of macro photography is of course that subjects are shot at close distances. While this close camera-to-subject proximity can lead to visually arresting images captured from an intimate perspective, this sort of photography presents unique technical challenges as well.

In this article I'll address one of the most significant of these challenges - controlling depth of field (DOF). The term depth of field refers to the area in front of and behind the point on which focus is set that can be rendered in sharp focus. As we'll explore throughout this article, DOF control plays a very prominent role in macro photography.

The cute creature in the image below is a cicada nymph, by definition the larval or sub-adult stage of an insect with partial metamorphosis. For me, this image is a failure. Why? Almost all the interesting parts and features of the nymph are are out of focus - its abdomen, wing buds, legs, even the front of its head.

In this image of cicada nymph , satisfyingly little of the subject is rendered in sharp focus.

Why are so many of the image elements blurred? It's not due to poor focusing technique. If you look carefully, you’ll see that I placed focus on the cicada's eye, always a good choice whether photographing people or insects. The lack of sharp detail results from insufficient DOF. That is, the range of objects in front of and behind my point of focus that can be simultaneously rendered in sharp focus is extremely shallow. The result? We see sharp detail in just a tiny portion of the whole image.

Here's another example of shallow DOF. When focus is placed on the mantis’ eye, the rest of its body is out of focus.

As you can see, the problem isn't solved simply by focusing on another area. If I place focus on the rest of the head area, the is eye then out of focus.

Understanding depth-of-field

Before we can begin to figure out how to better control DOF, we must first understand the factors that make it so problematic in macro photography. Depth of field is dependent upon three factors: aperture value, focal length and subject distance. When each of the other two variables are fixed, setting a larger F-stop number (which actually means a smaller aperture opening) will result in a larger DOF. Using a longer focal length will result in a smaller DOF. And shooting at a closer subject distance means a smaller DOF.

In macro photography, however, DOF depends primarily on just two factors: aperture value and magnification. At any given aperture value, the higher the magnification ratio, the smaller the DOF. And this explains why DOF is so shallow in macro; the magnifications are simply much larger than in any other type of photography.

With this in mind, let's go back to the cicada image that began this discussion. When photographers see such a shallow DOF, they instinctively think the aperture was set very wide (a small F-stop number). But this shot was made at f/9.0 which, outside of macro photography, is considered to be a narrow aperture. That leaves magnification as the main contributor to shallow DOF. This nymph is only 2 or 3mm in length, and since I wanted to photograph it filling a large portion of the frame, I had to use an extreme magnification ratio – in this case, of 5:1, meaning that the cicada's projection on the sensor was 5 times its actual size! Extreme indeed, and so DOF is extremely shallow, at only a fraction of a millimeter.

One might think that a too-shallow DOF appears only in extreme macro. This isnot true: even in this image of a devil’s horse nymph, shot using a magnificationmuch lower than 1:1, a larger DOF would definitely be welcome.

Since DOF is affected by aperture and magnification, let's see what happens when we alter them. First - aperture value. The robber fly below was shot using a very small aperture: f/16. In fact, this aperture is so small that is causes a significant loss of sharpness due to diffraction. And it still doesn’t help this image much; the DOF is too shallow with most of the subject out of focus.

Here, even a very small aperture couldn’t help making the DOF large enough to have the whole subject in focus.

The second thing that can be done is to lessen the magnification by stepping back from the subject and making it take up less space in the frame. This most certainly works to increase DOF. Yet I have two major problems with this 'solution'. Having the subject fill a smaller part of the frame than intended forces you to crop the image in post processing. And while a large crop may make the subject appear as if you shot it at closer range, you end up with less detail, eliminating one of the most appealing aspects of macro photography.

Furthermore, as a wildlife photographer I always wish to capture my scene in as close a state as possible to the final image. Using a small magnification and then making a significant crop collides with this ideal and personally I avoid this unless there is simply no other choice.

Comments

combining the images above via focus - it would do camera these days by a special function moving AF point (I say "AF macro bracketing":) and a final composition of result picture in the camera (or in the computer) ... I think, it is a simply software function :)

For it is better camera (tablet with camera module like GXR) with min.10'' display, for better select of AF point etc.

You are quite wrong. Focus stacking is a highly processor intensive business and most of the time you not only have to stack two or three images, I have seen stacks of several hundered images and myself have shot series of up to 50 images to be combined into a single image with this technique. The problem most of the time when refocusing a lens is that all lenses in closeup photography change not only focus distance but focal length as well (a 180mm macro lens can be just a 100mm lens when focused at 1:1). This focus breathing (which is more developed in zoom lenses) makes stacking a much more tedious process as you have to deal with artifacts due to the change in focal length.

""" Depth of field is dependent upon three factors: aperture value, focal length and subject distance. """I think, there's one more factor relates to the DOF, that's the sensor's dimension. The more of the sensor's dimension, the less of the depth of field.Because the "normal lens" is equal to the diagonal of the image sensor, and the smaller of the sonsor, the shorter of the focal, and so the wider of the DOF.

In my experience it is better to keep the focus of the lens fixed and indeed move the camera via an external focusing rail. It makes life easier for both helicon focus as well as CombineZM - which are the two most popular choices of focus stacking software...

Erez This was very helpful. Looking forward to learning more. My wife and I really enjoy macro photography but our macro's are nowhere near your level. I am camera shopping though. :) I'll be eager to try some of what you have taught me.Thanks,Gary

The problem most people have with too-shallow depth of field is not easy to fix - they actually think it looks GOOD. Way too many people who post images on here seem to think that using very shallow depth of field makes their images look "professional" and most of the time they're dead wrong.

Exactly, and it's not only macro. Everybody wants to own a FF camera and shoot f1.4. I mean, it does look cool once in a while, but it turns into an affectation after a while. People are not isolating the background from the subject, they are isolating the subject from itself.

I have m43, and often f2.8, 4, 5.6, or even 8 does not given me enough DOF, depending on the lens and depending on what I'm doing.

It is my experience that small sensor cameras give superior depth of field for macro photography. I don't buy the diffraction argument. You may have to stop down to f:16 and beyond to get acceptable depth of field with a DSLR and suffer from diffraction limitations but a compact that is diffraction limited at f:4 has great depth of field at f:2.8.This article explores the argument further. http://www.eos-magazine-forum.com/showthread.php?4538-Small-sensor-macro

Yes and no. Smaller sensors do have greater DOF at the cost of increased noise and many bridge cameras have various de-noise algorithms which degrade the image. This often results in a water colour painted look that is not very pleasing to the eye. If you took a shot of an insect that was the same size on the sensor with a FF, a crop camera and a bridge, then there would be no difference in DOF. Of course this would defeat the purpose in having a FF camera!

My choice is a crop DSLR (the 7D); the DOF is greater than say a 5DII (I have both) but the 7D is not subject to the noise of a bridge camera. Despite the increased noise with the 7D over the 5DII, noise reduction software can reduce the noise without substantial image degradation; this can not be done with smaller sensor.

The problem of small sensor cameras is that there are no viable choices for macro lenses and that the gift of higher DOF comes at quite a price because the background usually will be unappealing cluttered and busy...

Another wonderful installment in these excellent Macro Photography articles, accompanied, as always, by stunning images.

I'm eagerly awaiting the discussion of hardware, specifically the discussion of special macro lenses vs bellows vs extension tubes vs reversed lenses vs add-on close up lenses. These 3 methods to focus closer are listed in order of most costly to least costly and almost certainly in order of overall effectiveness, but I would very much like to know more about the pros and cons of each from an expert.

I have to photograph tiny micro chips 1sq.millimeter. I am using a Nikon D200 with Nikon PB-4 bellows ( shift ) and reversed 60mm micro Nikkor. The image doesn't look sharp at f/5.6 so I have to go to F/22 or sometime f/32. Then I get diffraction problems. Seems like I can't win! Should I go to stacking? If so, do I focus using the focusing ring or moving the camera back and forth?

Dear Weegee, simply use your lens' sharpest aperture and manually focus on the first part you want to be in focus and from there move on to all the other points you want to have in focus. Then use focus stacking software and you'll have a image that's in focus from your first point ot your last. Good luck with it.

Stacking should work for you even better than for "wild life photography" since your objects do not move, nor do you need to worry about wind moving your object (assuming you are indoors). Hence you can take as much time as you like between each racking focus exposure.

You should use whichever focusing method is the most precise and convenient.

The microchips are flat so maybe you're having issues with focus or field curvature. Focus by moving the camera, either on rail or by hand. Shoot burst and with remote or timer, do not use the shutter button - the greatest cause of blur. If your camera has eletronic first shutter, use it.

You're probably better off looking for a microscope objective, like a Nikon CF infinity plan 4x objective, and use it with an adapter on your camera+lens. These things are designed to produce a flat image from very small things.

Another option might be a stereo microscope with a camera attachment. They magnify to 30x easily so it could project a 30mm image straight on your sensor from your chip.

Check out the photomacrography.net forums, you will find a lot of useful ideas there.

Ought not to be field curvature problem on that scale on a reversed lens. They were designed to cope with the slight flex and varying thicknesses of 35mm films. Are there any sources of low-frequency vibrations where you live (passing trucks, trains, heating or aircon fans or pumps, etc) ? Does your setup have the stage holding the chips firmly fastened to the bellows unit? Is your PB4 absolutely straight? As I recall it's the one mounted on parallel tubes rather than on a girder rail (PB6). If it's mounted vertically is there any backlash at all in the mechanism as you tighten each end? Does it help if you focus it by moving each end upwards (against gravity) instead of downwards so the cogs can't shift as you tighten it up and then let go of it. Otherwise it might be time to look for a PB6E, the extended non-shift Nikon bellows. I'm a big fan of the PB4 bellows though, brilliant design for macro with tilt and shift.

You can also try with a short lens if you hate stacking. Nikkor AI-s 20mm/3.5 for example; a reversed kit lens @18mm may work for a feasibility check. Notice there will be no more DoF, just the out-of-focus area should be less blurred.

I have had excellent results from bridge cameras, specifically the Fuji HS20 superzoom. The manual lens on this camera enables fine zoom control like a DSLR and is capable of fantastic tele macro results with nice blurred backgrounds.

Others have mentioned cameras like the Panasonic LX5 (which I also own) but I don't find this anywhere near as good as the HS20. With a close up lens the results become quite spectacular for a small sensor camera.

Others have mentioned diffraction problems with small sensor cameras but this is rarely a problem because you don't have to use apertures where diffraction issues start to materialise.

fixed lens cameras always have a much bigger field of depth and are therefore well suited for macro shots. If you use f/5.6 on a HS20 it's the same as using f/22 on a 7D. F/8 becomes f/32. But, as always, the quality of the pictures are way behind if you don''t use a tripod, cable release, mirror lock up and the lowest iso possible.

@Daniel: Small sensors and large sensors fare just about the same regarding diffraction. One just has to compare apertures scaled by the crop factor.

@Karl: You mostly don't have too much DoF even with small sensors! But you have a large portion of the background that looks relatively less blurred. The apparent depth is tue to lower relative background blur, not due to more DoF.

@_sem_: You have no way of separating the subject from the background - which ruins 99.999% of small camera macro shots! I used to think the same way (more DOF and thus easier) until I switched to a DSLR - the macro capabilities of small sensor cameras are rubbish in comparison, the drawbacks far far far outweigh the perceived minute advantage.

@Karl: short-FL macro works either if you /want/ to show the object together with the background or if you clean up the background (jewelery in studio etc). But you can do longer-FL macro with some compacts too, by using a close-up diopter in the tele range. Best done with some beefy bridge cameras with long zooms that maintain a relatively wide aperture around 200mm equiv or so. Or perhaps one might find a suitable cine lens and attach it to the Pentax Q.

@Karl: when we are talking about true macro (1:1 and above), the DoF you get with even the small sensor is more than enough to give you a nice subject separation. We are talking about maybe a 1mm DoF as opposed to 0.1mm I am currently getting with my dSLR macro setup. Some of my best macro shots I have made with a tiny Canon A75 (3mp) and a 50mm f/2.8 lens as a high quality diopter. Macro is possibly the easiest type of photography for people on a tight budget as there is a huge number of ways you can get a high magnification, most of them quite cheap.

I think he missed the easiest step to take,which is to use an enthusiast compact camera. The small sensor gives huge depth of field, and the images are high quality. I'm talking about something like an XZ-1 or an LX5 or TL500, etc.

No, that's not an option. The diffraction-limited depth-of-field is format-independent. You might get the same DOF at f/2.8 on a compact as you'd get on a full-frame dSLR at f/16, but so what? You'll also get about the same impact of diffraction. So any additional DOF you get from stopping the compact down further, you can also get by stopping down the dSLR as well.

I know that's the theory, but it hasn't worked out in practice like that for me. At the very least, you get the benefits of higher shutter speed on the compact, which makes hand-held macro an option. I would venture to guess that if you shot a compact hand-held, and a tripod with a DSLR in a field, and raced to see who get more keeper insect photos in a day, the compact wins.

No, you don't get that benefit either, as you can shoot the larger sensor at higher ISOs by exactly the same amount as the f-stop difference. I routinely shoot macros with sensors ranging in size from full-frame to 1/2.3". There's little difference in performance except that the larger sensor camera performs better in other ways (better low-ISO image quality, better focusing, better viewfinder, faster, etc.).

I think if you were to use an enthusiast compact camera, you'd want to use something with a long zoom. The XZ-1, LX5, etc.. focus closest at the wide end, which will most likely scare away insects and probably block light. If you shoot with a bridge camera with close focus filters, however, you'll be able to obtain similar results with more depth of field.

Perhaps that guy isn't doing the math right (and I'm not either in this comment set since I didn't include the bellows effect in the math) or using the right tools. You can definitely do just as well with large sensors as with small.

It depends on the resolution one finds acceptable and the "circle of confusion" tolerance. In my experience, the little Sony T-series cameras (4.8mm lens at the wide setting) can make very satisfactory macro images of many small subjects. Certainly more satisfactory than much I have seen from larger format equipment where the depth of field is more severely limited by the physics.

I talked with a pro photographer last weekend who was exhibiting large-scale closeups of sea-surf. The depth of field in the prints was horrendously narrow for such a topic, and it turns out the extraordinarily smooth images were from an Hasselblad. His statement was that the tiny area of sharpness (in the midst of the huge expanses of smooth bokeh) was his aesthetic. To each his own...

I have many Nikon cameras & lenses, some Canon compacts and an old Olympus E100RS 1.5mp(?) 10x zoom with macro capability. I took macro shots of the same subject with numerous combinations and printed them 8x10 and asked friends and wife to pick the picture they liked the best. Each one chose the Oly shot!! One CAN get excellent macro shots with a small sensor camera, and with the newest ones more easily and with DOF superior to DSLs.

I use the Sony DSC-H5 with the VCL-M3358 close-up lens. The lens has no effect at wide angle. As the cameral is zoomed in, the effect increases to a maximum t full telephoto. Unfortunately at full telephoto the depth of field goes bye-bye

I clicked on edit, and after adding the fantastic reply which follows, I received the message that it was too late to edit the reply. So here we go with a second reply.I have three cameras which I use for photographing wildflowers in an area which is usually windy. The first is a Sony DSC P-200 which has a 1/1.7 sensor and will focus to 10cm. I also have the Sony DSC H-5 with a 1/2.5 sensor which will focus to 1 cm. Finally I have an Olympus E-620 equipped with the 50mm f2.0 Macro lens. The DOF for this lens is 1mm at f2.0 and 3mm at f11. All three cameras went with me on a trip to a lake and for every flower I encountered I took pictures with all three. I discarded all of the close-up photos taken with the Olympus. My preference is for the P-200 except when I need the close-focusing ability of the H-5. Pictures taken at a distance are another thing with the E-620 winning out. The Oly XZ-1 is in the mail.

I agree. The depth of field is proportional to the aperture used and inversely proportional to the focal length of the lens squared. Just read the small focal length of a point and shoot camera lens and do the arithmetic - you will have over 10 times the depth of field of an APS-C DSLR at the same aperture. I carry a point and shoot camera instead of a macro lens - cheaper, smaller and lighter!

I agree. Depth of field is proportional to lens aperture and inversely proportional to the lens focal length squared. Just use the small focal length of a point and shoot camera lens and do the arithmetic. You will have over 10 times the depth of field compared to an APS-C DSLR. I carry a point and shoot camera instead of a macro lens - cheaper, smaller and lighter!

Like another poster here, I have the Oly 50mm 2.0 macro, and an Oly C7070. The Oly C7070 takes better macro pictures in my opinion, although the 50mm 2.0 macro is a superior lens and I have other uses for it.

No it is not so well written, just take a look at the exchange above ;)It does not explain the role of the relative blur which makes the appearance of deeper sharpness at shorter focal length despite no more DoF. Short FL is what makes compact macro modes appear to have more depth, not the small sensor. You can make the same look on DSLR with a wide-angle lens, stopped down a lot, on a very short extension tube. ljfinger explained it. I think the one thing little sensors have is shorter exposures (with similar framing; short FL, aperture and ISO adjusted considering the crop factor), so more useful for shooting handheld in ambient light. @chrswggl: the vast majority of compacts have macro magnifications at the wide end, magnify less at tele. But the longer zooms are useful with diopters, if the aperture is large enough (all in diffraction otherwise). Long zoom + diopter makes longer effective FL and DSLR macro look - more working distance, less "depth", more background blur.

Michael, I agree that this is a tough subject and difficult to explain in a few sentences, with all the rooted misconceptions, even among macro masters that have made many great images. I think the author does write nicely and puts good work for samples. Except that so far he has avoided the confusing bits that are an obvious source of confusion in the macro audience. I do hope he tackles this tricky part one day. I got convinced by comparison samples folks have posted somewhere, and later by trying things out myself. I don't remember a specific link to a good comparison. But you can take a look at my DSLR closeup samples that closely resemble macro-mode-closeups made with compacts. These are made with D90, with the 18-200VR @18mm or with the AI-s 20/3.5, both stopped down all the way or almost, both on the 5.6mm K1 extension tube: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=38923775http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=39021378

The definition of "Macro photography" is anything shot between 1:2 and 10:1 magnification rate. few lenses can achieve such magnification without specialized accessories. Shooting a butterfly with 300mm lens set at MFD, doesn't make it a macro shot, but merely a close up. and there's a huge difference between these two.

Of course you are technically correct, but here is another point of view, which in my opinion makes the author's statement right.

Long distances (2-5 feet?) for macro photos are only RELATIVELY long in the context of macro photography. In the context of photography in general (portrait and landscape, and excluding macro) these "long distances" are pretty much "close distances".

Therefore the author's rather general statement which explains the most defining characteristic of macro (vs genera) photography, the explanation is perfectly sensible. People also use the general term "extreme closeup photography" which just about everyone understands right away.

Good article. Too bad his entomology is not as good as his macro-photography. The insect he calls a Devil's Horse Nymph (a species of grasshopper) is actually one of 12 members of the mantis family Empusa, likely Empusa pennata, called the conehead mantis in English or mantis palo in Spanish.Other than that the articel is very informative.

Good article. DOF depends on 1. Image size and 2. actual aperture size;[not f stop] as each increases DOF decreases. That's why the P&Ss have good DOF. and full frame such narrow

I wonder if a mirror up multiple exposure mode with focus stepping or in lens image stabilization focus stepping might not give a one shot focus stack. or again a mirror up multiframe coupled to a motorized focusing rail

DOF, which has been explained well here in the article and the comments, and which is dependent on aperture, focal length, and magnification.

The other is POF - plane of focus. While it is necessary to have sufficient DOF to keep the subject or desired parts of the subject in focus, excess DOF may be necessary if the POF is ignored or mismanaged.

The need for excess DOF because of mismanaged POF results in longer shutter speeds, higher ISO settings, and/or smaller than necessary apertures...all of which work against you.

While the two are related, they are also two very different things to manage and get right in the composition of a quality macro photograph.

Latest in-depth reviews

Panasonic's premium compact DC-ZS200 (TZ200 outside of North America) boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. There are tradeoffs that come with that big lens, however. Find out all the details in our in-depth review.

The Hex Raven DSLR bag holds a ton of gear and employs a low-profile design that doesn't scream "I'm a camera bag." We think it's a little too bulky for everyday use, but makes for a great option when traveling with a lot of gear.

The Sony a7 III sets a new benchmark for full-frame cameras thanks to its compelling combination of value and capability. It's at home shooting everything from sports to portraits, and is one of the most impressive all-around cameras we've seen in a long while. Find out all the details in our full review.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for taking pictures of people and events? Reliable autofocus, good image quality in low light, and great colors straight from the camera are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting people and events, and recommended the best.

The new HP DesignJet Z6 and Z9+ supposedly offer "the fastest printing capabilities available on the market today," all while using fewer ink tanks, and featuring useful add-ons like a built-in vertical trimmer.

In an effort to streamline production and minimize confusion, RED has announced that it is simplifying its product lineup to three main cameras. As an added bonus, this change dramatically drops the prices for all three options.

Fujifilm's new X-T100 is an SLR-style mirrorless camera that takes the internals of the X-A5, including phase-detect AF, and adds a fully articulating LCD and high-res OLED viewfinder. The X-T100 is priced at a very reasonable $599/€599 body-only and $699/€699/£619 with a 15-45mm lens.

Panasonic's latest firmware update for its GH5S, GH5 and G9 series of cameras was leaked in Japan earlier today and is now being officially announced a week early. But don't get too excited – you still won't be able to download it until May 30th.

We've been saying for years that the term "lens compression" is misleading, but Lee Morris over at Fstoppers has put together a useful video that explains why this is the case, and demonstrates it with two easy-to-understand examples.

Last week, some 'leaked' photos were published online that purported to show a DJI Phantom 5 drone with interchangeable lens camera and several prime lenses. The rumor was widely reported, but DPReview has learned that those images do not, in fact, show a Phantom 5 at all.

Award-winning fashion and celebrity photographer Markus Klinko recently tested out the Godox EC-200 flash extension head. Actually, he tested out four of them, creating a quad-flash ring light alternative that works great for both beauty and close-up work.

According to a recent investor presentation, Sony intends to occupy the top slot in the overall camera market by the end of 2020, beating back Canon and Nikon by boosting its interchangeable lens systems.

Google has finally added the ability to mark your favorite images in Google Photos, so they can be filtered into a dedicated album. The service is also planning to a social network-like "heart" button that lets you like other people's photos.

We've been messing around with Apollo, an iOS app that allows you to add 3D lighting effects to images using depth information, and have to say we're impressed with what it's capable of – but that doesn't mean we don't have a few requests for the next version.

The new lightweight laptop packs a whole lot of photo- and video-editing punch. The laptop can be specced out with a Core i9 processor, 16GB of RAM, 1TB of SSD storage, NVIDIA graphics with 4GB of GDDR5, and a 4K display with 100% Adobe RGB coverage.

It looks like Canon is getting into sensor sales. The three specialized CMOS sensors the company recently demoed—including a 120MP APS-H model and an ultra-low light sensor—have been listed for sale through a distributor in the US.

Kodak Alaris has launched a new single-use disposable camera in Europe. Called the Kodak Daylight Single Use Camera, this 800 ISO film camera is supposedly ideal for parties, weddings, and similar events.

Computer vision company Lucid and cinema camera maker RED have partnered to create an 8K 3D camera that can capture 4-view (4V) holographic images and video in real-time. The camera is designed to work with RED's upcoming holographic Hydrogen One smartphone.

If Canon and Nikon do get into high-end mirrorless, it's almost certain that they'll do everything they can to maintain compatibility with their existing mounts. But, asks Richard Butler, wouldn't it be more interesting if they built a small, niche system to live alongside their existing DSLRs?

You know that feeling when you're already all suited up and out on a spacewalk outside the International Space Station, and only then do you realize you forgot to put the SD card in your GoPro? No? Us either... but one astronaut on the ISS sure does.

From 2015 to 2017, filmmaker Macgregor and his crew spend many months traveling back and forth on the famed Mauritanian Railway—the so-called 'Backbone of the Sahara—to document the grueling journey endured by merchants who regularly travel atop this train. This beautifully-executed short doc is the result.

Synology has added a new 6-bay NAS to its DiskStation+ series, and it's aimed squarely at photographers and medium sized businesses. The DS1618+ can handle up to six 12TB drives, giving it a max capacity of 72TB, or up to 60TB in RAID 5.

Our original gallery for Tamron's new 70-210mm F4 had portraits, slow-moving wildlife and city scenes, but was sorely missing fast action. We remedied that by photographing some motorcycles flying through the air.

This week on DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan prepare for the summer holiday season by putting several popular waterproof cameras to the test. If you're considering a rugged camera for the beach or pool this summer, or if you just want to see what a Chris and Jordan fishing show might look like, tune in.

Soulumination is a non-profit organization that provides life-affirming legacy photography to families facing serious medical conditions, completely free of charge. This video shares the work they are doing.

Fujifilm EU seems to have accidentally leaked an unreleased camera to the masses. The leaked page details a new "X-T100" camera that will share most of its specs with the X-A5, but includes an EVF, deeper buffer, and 3-way tilting touchscreen.

LA-based director and cinematographer Phil Holland of PHFX recently joined forces with Gotham Film Works to create something out-of-this-world. Using a special aerial camera array, Holland shot a flyover of New York City using not one, not two, but three 8K RED Weapon Monstro VistaVision cameras.